Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parliamentary debates on the military missions in Afghanistan and against Daesh in Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom are analysed to demonstrate that political parties systematically differ in the way they frame the use of armed force. The analyses provide strong evidence for a left/right difference in approaching conflict generally. Left, and particularly radical left parties, exhibit ‘spiral model thinking’, i.e. a critical reflection on how one’s own policy contributes to the adversary’s behaviour. From this perspective, the threats posed by the Taliban and the jihadists of Daesh are not simply given, but their severity, at least in part, results from the intervening countries’ policy. In contrast, parties on the right have a higher tendency to take the nation state as their prime reference point and to argue in terms of national interests and national security. References to humanitarian universal values can be found across the political spectrum. A MANOVA analysis shows that an MP’s party family is a stronger predictor of the frames she will evoke than her nationality, further underlining the relevance of party politics for the study of military interventions and foreign policy more broadly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".